The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-08-30
A FoRc1BLE INTRUSION

AAAbOI ohN SOAAPoiSOhJ SAPooNAo OAt 0A1o =
private affairs, and papers without judi
cial process or in the course of Judicial
r3teeSings, which is contrary TO the
| principles of free government, and is
abhorrent to the instincts of English
men and Americans.
In Kilbourn vs. Thompson, 113
| United States 1853, we have the deci-
sion of the Supreme Court of the
United States, that neither House of
Congress had power to make inquiries
into the private affairs of citizen :;
that is, to compel the exposure of such
affairs. That case was this: The
| f m of Jay Cook & Co. were debtors of
the United States, and it was alleged
that they were interested in the
railroad pool in the city of Wash
ington, and that the trustees of their
estates and effects had made settle
ment of their interests with the associ-
ates of the firm to the disadvantage
and loss of numerous creditors, includ
ing the government of the United States
The House of Representatives by reso-
luton reciting these facts, authorized
the speaker to appoint committee of
five to inquire into the matter and his
tory of the said
REAL ESTATE POOL,
and the character of the settlement,
with the amount Of property in
volved, ia which Jay Cook & Co..
were interested and the amount paid,
or to be paid, in said settlement. with
power to send for persons and papers
and report to the House. The com mis-
sion was appointed and organized and
proceeded to make the inquiry directed.
A subpoena was issued to one Kilbourn,
commanding him to appear before the
commission to testify and be examined
touching the matters to be inquired
into, and to bring with him certain de-
signated records, papers and maps rela' {.
ing to the inquiry. Kilbourn appeared
before the commission and was ask. d
to state the names Of five members OF
the real estate pool and where each re-
sides, and he refused to answer the
questions or to produce the books which
had been required. The commission re-
ported the matter to the House, and it
ordered the Speaker to issue warrant
directed 10 the sergeant-atarms, to
arrest KIlbourn and bring him before
the bar of the House to be punished for
contempt. On being brought before the
House, Kilbourn
PERSISTED IN HIS REFUSAL
to answer the question and to produce
the books and papers required. He was
thereupon held to be in contempt and
committed to the custody of the ser
geant- alarms until he should signify
his willingness to appear before the
commission and answer the question
and obey the subpoena, duceS tecUnt,
and it was ordered that in the mean
time the sergeant-at-arms should cause
him to be confined in the common jail
accordingly confined in that jail for
forty-6ve days, when he was released
on habeds corpus by the chief justice
of the Supreme Court of the District
of Columbia. Upon his release he
sued the Speaker of the House, mem
bsrs of the commission and Sergeant
alarms for his forcible arrest, and
confinement. Defendants pleaded the
facts recited, to which pleas the plain
tiff demurred. The demurrer was over
ruled, and judgment was affirmed as to
all the defendants except the Sergeant
alarms. They being members of the
House, were held to be protected from
prosecution for their action, and as to
Thompson, the Judgment was reversed,
and the case remanded for further pro-
ceedings. In the Supreme Court, the
case
RECEIVED GREAT CONS DERATIoN,
and it was held that the subject matter
of Investigation was judicial and not
and that there was no power
in Congress or in either house, on the
allegation that the insolvent debtor of
the United States was interested in a
private business partnership, to inYesti-
gate the affairs of that partnership, and
consequently, by authority, to compel
the witness to testify on the subject.
1.-THE House of Representatives" said
the Court, "has the sole right to i'm
peach officers of the government, and
the Senate to try them, we're the ques
ton of such an impeachment before
either body. Acting in its appropriate
sphere on that subject, we see no rea-
son to doubt the right to compel the |
attendance of witnesses and their an
swer to proper questions in the same |
manner and by. use of the same means |
that courts of justice can, in like cases. |
Whether the power of punishment in |
either house, by fine or imprisonment, |
goes beyond this or not, we are sure |
that no person can be punished for |
contumacy as witness before either |
house. unless his testimony is required |
in matter into which the house has
JURISDICTION TO INQUIRE,
and we feel equally sure that
neither of these bodies possesses the
general power of making an inquiry
into the private affairs of citizens"
And again, eff the investigation which |
the Commission was directed to make |
was Judicial in its character, and could |
only be properly and successfully made
by the court of justice, and if it related
to the matter wherein relief or redress
could be had only by Judicial proceed
ir 6, we do not, after what has been said,
deem it necessary to discuss the propo.
sition that the power attempted to be
exercised was one confded by the Con-
to the judicial, and not legis-
lat;ve, department of government. We
think it equally clear that the power
asserted is judicial and not legislative"
and again: "The resolution adopted
as the sequence of the preamble
contains no hint of any intention
Of final action of Congress,
On the subject In all the argument of